Slashdot Log In
Skype Gives Up Anti-GPL Appeal
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri May 09, 2008 09:01 AM
from the green-enveloope dept.
from the green-enveloope dept.
l2718 writes "Yesterday we discussed Skype's appeal of a German court's ruling against them regarding a violation of the GPL. Harald Welte (the plaintiff) now reports in his blog that following oral argument, Skype decided to drop the appeal and accept the lower court ruling in Weite's favor. More details and analysis at Groklaw. Congratulations to Mr. Welte and GPL-violations.org!"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: GPL vs. Skype Back In Court 369 comments
mollyhackit writes "Hackaday reports that the GPL vs Skype case is going back to court today. This as an appeal to the court's decision Slashdot reported last July. The original case was brought against Skype for the Linux based SMC Skype WiFi phone. The court upheld the GPLv2 and decided that Skype had not gone far enough in meeting section 3 which details how to provide the original source. This time around Skype is apparently trying to argue that the GPL violates anti-trust regulations."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Regarding the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regarding the summary... (Score:4, Funny)
Waite, let's see wate the article says... hmm, it's Welte. How svelte!
Parent
Re:Regarding the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Informative)
"To all those who don't like the license: you don't have to use it. Just write your own code. But if you want to use GPL code, the license comes with it. It's a package deal. Thanks."
(which has been oft-said on /.)
Re:As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also,
It is freedom, in a way, that binds you with some responsibility. And how difficult it is for many people to understand.
One does have freedom to choose not to drive on roads. But when you choose to drive on roads, there is binding of following certain traffic rules, for the benefit of all. And one must understand the logic behind those bindings.
Go...Penguin ...Go...
Parent
Re:As Groklaw says... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is freedom, in a way, that binds you with some responsibility. And how difficult it is for many people to understand.
People often want to have authority without responsibility: let me do what I want, without having to pay attention to other people's terms, short- and long-term impact, etc. But if you want freedom from this responsibility, you must also give up the authority that requires it. You can try to fight it, but this always comes back in the end.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you right up to the point where you say "You can try to fight it, but this always comes back in the end."
That is something I found out when I bought into a condo complex. Where I live the ruling council has enormous powers and very little legal responsibility. What little responsibility assigned to them by the relevant legislation is ignored at will because the only way to make them responsible is to take them to court. If there are N units in the complex they have (N-1)X funds to draw on to
What is the Software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What is the Software? (Score:5, Informative)
As for how it was discovered i'm not sure. Im guessing that as they complied with the rest of the agreement they left the copyright notice in.
Glorious day
Parent
Re:What is the Software? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would have incited Harald, if true, since he worked on that platform. But it's without the cellular chip, I guess, and bigger, and clunkier.
Bruce
Two thoughts on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Harald
Regards
Stirz
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that the same violation of the GPL is occurring with the software Visual Hub for the Mac. While the core program is a separate GUI frontend and it's source need not be provided, the work of this popular video conversion utility is done by ffmpeg with the related codecs and multiplexers. The single modified ffmpeg binary is downloaded separately from the same servers as Visual Hub. When Visual Hub downloa
And thanks to skype too, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And thanks to skype too, (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just like real life if you're smaller and on the bottom, you're screwed. Fortunately that wasn't the case for the article's penguin.
Re:Important lesson: (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't that be "don't fuck with the GNU [gnu.org]"? I mean, I know people are hesitant to refer to the Free Software Foundation and use the term "open source" more often than "free software", but not referencing the GNU Project when talking about the GNU General Public License is pretty ridiculous. The penguin may have helped spread free software and all, but this isn't his fight.
Parent
Re:Important lesson: (Score:4, Funny)
That's right. It's a tag-team match. And Skype's partner was a brain damaged lawyer who thought anti-trust arguments were worth even mentioning. While Tux pummeled Skype, the Gnu snuck up on the lawyer from behind and bashed him with a folding chair.
Parent
Re:So, do we get source code now? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a victory? (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but I'll take a crack at that.
In the US, whatever you create is copyrighted by default. I believe it is easier to defend if you take the step of registering it, but as far as I know simply putting a copyright notice on it is sufficient. So I couldn't come along and take the code you published and use it in a project I intend to distribute without getting your permission.
"Getting your permission" is what abiding by the GPL amounts to. It says "this code is copyrighted. You may not redistribute it unless you agree to these terms
Unlike Microsoft-style EULAs, the GPL (as far as I know) does not have to be accepted by the user, as it really has nothing to do with the user (despite the fact that a lot of software out there makes you "accept" the GPL before installing it). You don't need to agree to anything to use emacs to write your novel, but if you want to include it in a software distribution, or use the source code within a project you are developing yourself, you need to get the permission of the copyright holder and agree to his terms. That means abiding by the GPL.
Parent
Yes, you're absolutely correct. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you know what? That's stupid. I'm not going to argue. You're right. You're absolutely right, the GPL will corrupt your code, your people, and your family. You will have to open source your bedroom activities, and invite RMS to watch. It's all true.
Because, frankly, I'm sick of companies who are too dumb to figure it out themselves, or too fucking retarded to hire the cheapest lawyer they can find to explain it to them if they can't figure it out for themselves, what exactly the GPL does and doesn't do. Cus if you can't figure it out, and are going to just assume whatever comes into your crack-damage brain (it'll pollute us all! no wait it's free we can do whatever we want!)... Then I don't want you using GPL code.
I mean seriously. If you can't figure out how maybe modifying the Linux kernel into your product means you have some obligations to follow vis-a-vis this free OS kernel you just picked up, and how this doesn't affect all the code you wrote that has nothing to do with the kernel... Then you are an idiot, your company deserves to fail, and I can only hope that your fear of using GPL software puts you at a competitive disadvantage and thus hastens that day.
So yes. GPL is viral. Pass it on.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After they got caught out, it went to court.
After some months toing and froing, Skype lost a lower court settlement.
Skype took it to a higher court.
Later that day, the appeals judge slaps them down, hard.
The next day, Skype drops the case.
Fixed that for you.
Re:This is the story... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it really should go something like that. If you think a license in invalid, you're not allowed to use the code under that license. Therefore, you have no license under which to use the code. So if you use the code anyway, you're purposefully committing copyright violations, just the same as if the license is valid and you don't live up to its terms.
Either way, they violated copyright. It's a damn poor argument to make that you thought you'd just use some code because you didn't think there was a valid license that gave you a right to use it.
Parent